>JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE PROVEN ME WRONG DOESN'T MEAN

so stupid

File: 1482283233191.jpg (263KB, 764x551px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 764x551px

just because you win and argument doesn't mean you're *correct* though

File: 1457470200112.jpg (2MB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1363px

>>34052513

>WIMMIN - AMIRITE GUIZE?!

you betas are pathetic

>>34052513
She's right though, you retard

>>34052542
tfw to intelligent to correctly win an argument

>>34052513
That's correct, though. Most of the time I can't express my arguments here because I don't know how to put them in words and my english is pretty bad.

>>34053169
>>34052513

Often when I'm in an argument I get emotionally overwhelmed due to my autism and find it difficult to articulate my thoughts precisely. Many pressures weigh down on you to perform adequately in an argument as failing to meet any of them likely results in you being perceived the loser. The type of people that are guilty of this perception are likely unintelligent as they rely and depend on extraneous factors to 'win' arguments even if they aren't actually right.

>>34053169
>>34053428
>Being too stupid to form coherent sentences and put forward convincing arguments is some relatable, everyday thing
>If you don't read some blabbering retard's mind and realize he's actually right, you're the stupid one
wew lad.

>>34053470
It's not that I can't, this anon >>34053428 put it perfectly. Sometimes I just feel lazy or not worth of discussing, it seems pointless. It's frustrating though.

>>34052513
ITS BEST TO NOT BUILD ANY INTELLECTUAL WALLS EVER. I always end up tearing my own down. To revuild them back up again

>holy shit look at this edge'' lord too smart to breath'' lol

>too lazy to undo caps in beginning of sentence

>>34052513
That dumb bitch is right though, idiot.

The Greeks wrote about this sort of thing a lot, you know. It was the difference between Sophistry and Philosophy. One person doesn't know shit but can be articulate and eloquent and so 'wins' the argument while the other one is wise but doesn't have the nice pretty talking skills to win a debate. Socrates called it 'cookery', in that it was a skill that made nice things but had no substance or meaning.

>>34053169
Same here. Even if i can speak the language,sometimes i can't say what i really want to say

>>34052513
some people aren't worth the effort
/ they're so dense its exhausting and
aint got the time

plus, some people are delusional and make an argument when there is none to be had. you can't reason with insane. just nod and walk away politely lol :)

just nod and walk away politely
or let them think they've won*
:D

also if i have lots of things to do i'm sorry but i'm not going to argue over the internet with an anon that literally does not matter. especially if he's so goddamn retarded it's impossible to talk with him. plus you don't care with he thinks / don't want to get to know him, so in fact, not only am i not that deeply invested into showing you i'm right, i'm going to MIA cause i have life to attend to

letting you run your mouth doesn't mean you've won. it means you have time to and others don't. also they don't care. your opinion doesn't change the world.

>>34052513
I know this feel tho
It's easy to assume from the outside that they're bullshitting you and trying to legitimize themselves with nothing to back them but when you're actually that person it's very frustrating. I mean obviously the solution is to not have an argument until you can properly articulate it, but sometimes the idea is unique or pressing so you want to get it out ASAP.

It just sucks though when you think about how many really awesome thoughts and stories have fallen silent because those who had them didn't have the talent or strength to express them. They probably number in the millions if not billions.

>>34054496
>didn't have the talent or strength to express them

in many cases, it has nothing to do with talent / strength.

sometimes "to lose" is to win ;)

let them think they've won lol how do you think housewives feel with their husbands or sons? you pretend like you agree or you amicably come to a standstill, but you allow them to think what you want / don't say anything further since you know it'll get into a bigger argument and you're wise enough not to waste your time. this isn't just about opposite sexes, but with anyone. not everyone has to beat the other into the ground to know they're right. sometimes saving your precious time is even more satisfying. they're worthless.

and when i say "to lose is to win" - it used to be an ancient proverb, vaguely translated so hoping it's correct in english. but think of a situation with a Boss vs. Employee

yes, the employee can argue for hours and btfo the boss and explain why the boss is wrong, but sometimes it's better in the long run to shut your mouth or nod / not be so focused on winning the small things, because in the big picture, what they think doesn't matter. it's better for their ego if they think they've won anyway. who's really winning? lmfao.

i don't need temporary satisfaction of winning an argument nor will i gain any pleasure from showing them light. it's just tiresome and i'm already onto better endeavors

if you're not purposely doing op's pic, something's wrong lol but i understand that part too. it's not always the case, though. :)

>>34053078
>>>34052542
>tfw to unintelligent to correctly win an argument

fixed it for ya

>>34054770
I dunno, I come from a position where I mostly prefer unconditional honesty and diversity of expression and thought. I guess I'm taking the simplistic route but in an ideal world everyone would be able to share their thoughts with everyone without having be afraid that sharing their thoughts would somehow derail their plans or negatively impact their lives.

I don't see silencing yourself for the purpose of deception as a triumph at all. It's more of a sign of weakness.

>>34052513
It clearly means that they've won the arguement if you are too stupid to even continue arguing. I fucking hate people who are too stupid to put their thoughts into words.

If you can't reason why you like or believe anything and defend it- that's what stupid is.

>>34054851
Arguing causes one do define one's abstracts and beliefs and pit one's mind against another. The essence of literature is arguement. I'm sorry that you're stupid.

See in her specific case she's retarded, but just because you are bad at arguing doesn't mean your point is wrong.

That said she's probably arguing over some feminism bullshit so she IS wrong but the sentiment she is expressing is valid.

>>34052558
did you just originally assume their gender, you shitlord?

>>34052513
YOU'LL NEVER DEFEAT ANDROSSSSSSSSS

File: 1354556719412.jpg (24KB, 534x443px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 534x443px

>>34053428
>>34053169

Well put thoughts.

>>34055154
Here you go with the strawman right out of the gate.

No wonder you dislike arguements lmao.

File: 13745001_851330508335742_1498903959_n.jpg (182KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1080x1080px

>>34054911
yes, but nobody's afraid of sharing anything. perhaps you're a NEET who has an infinite supply of time, but other people don't wish to spend hours arguing with an insolent bastard over a trivial subject. yes, i could put him to rest, but is it my priority? of course not. if i have a million other things to do beforehand, i'll get to that first, then him last (should i even have any energy leftover).

>>34054929
>>34054980
you're dumb. dense as fuck. F- for terrible bait
people are perfectly able to place their thoughts into words. it's a matter of whether one wishes to. why is it important to prove something to you? do i need your validation? do i have any energy to explain? do i even care? lmao

if i had to explain to every autist why they were autistic, i wouldn't have a moment to myself.

but who am i talking to? all you faggots revel in starting 4 hour facebook youtube wars over "i fucked your mom last night" so lmao keep arguing dumbass. you look pathetic vehemently trying to get your point across, when you don't even understand what you're arguing. some people refuse to stoop that low.

it's like when a baby is crying and throwing a tantrum. do you entertain it or pretend like everything's okay so it shuts the fuck up? ^_^

>>34055175
>assuming
>implying

this is why nobody likes to fight with crazy

you infer shit in the most disproportionate way and expect people to sit and break it down for you. i'm sorry but please stay LARPing on these forums lmao <3 lmk when you're a member of real society fuckwad.

i'd sit here and argue w/ a 200lb mouthbreathing hambeast but i have a phd to polish :* time is of the essence and when people would pay to have a moment of my time, why the fuck would i waste it on proving an incel wrong?

>>34055245
So in defence of being called out for using the strawman fallacy your next strategy is to go even further with it?

lmao

>>34052513
the tumblr is absolutely not wrong and if you actually think like that, OP, you're a retarded faggot

>>34055293
ur a meme bb

stop trying to flirt with me i have a boyfriend

I think sometimes this is true. I've been in arguments where the other person will try to talk over me and actively interrupt me with stupid shit.
Sometimes they'll let me talk but I'm so worried that they'll interrupt that I end ul talking fast and getting words jumbled together.

>>34055325
Ok, homegirl. I'm sorry you're stupid.

>>34055355
Don't be a pussy then. Outwit them and shit on them harder if they do so. It's fun.

>>34055365
ew don't homegirl me lmao who says that? rofl
jfc how sheltered are you

sorry you have AIDS. don't shoot up the school now

File: 1483027698862.png (312KB, 389x386px)

312KB, 389x386px

>>34053169
>>34053428
>Oh man I totally have an argument and not convincing myself I do when I don't so I don't have to face cognitive dissonance

In a way she's right. In the past I tried to argue with niggers and they either use insults or hoot and holler until you give up or say something so stupid you don't know how to respond.

Eventually I realized they aren't human and that barring physical force you should just not talk to them

>>34055431
You really want some dick, don't you?

>>34055459
All you have to do is be funny and black people will like you.

>>34055459
aka some people aren't worth wasting YOUR time to prove

also who the fuck cares

>but yes, sometimes the shit they say is so retarded... i simply stand back in awe. this happened recently and i really had to question whether he was even worth keeping as a friend. it's staggering when people you care about have an impenetrable wall of ignorance, and as much as you want to save them, the disgust puts you off and you just walk away as if you never talked to him/her ever. it all comes down to whether it's worth it 4 u t b h

>>34055456
>there's no way for the argument to progress so I'll just pretend you're stupid instead of befuddled
it doesn't matter but you're wrong

>>34052513
logically, this is completely valid
This is even a named fallacy

>>34055467
not everyone wants genital herpes

*orders angel shot w/ lime on ice*

>>34055528
You take yourself way too seriously.

>>34055545
Oh, thanks for warning me. How hard is finding sexual partners when you always alert them of your herpes?

>>34055550
you would too if you were a queen~ god bless

>>34055580
you're like that crackwhore on vegas blvd that talks to the air

https://vine.co/v/h55TYHjnXZg

>>34052513
I actually know that feel though, I'm guessing the tumblrinas who made this are talking about when they lose an argument, but as someone with anxiety who stutters a lot this actually happens to me. I can't get a point across because I'm to autistic to verbalize it so it comes out as a stuttered fragmented mess.

>>34055677
Post tits funbags

also what's sad is i was kinda going through this lately

like if the person you're arguing with is a fucking degenerate piece of trash, not only could you fuck up their logic, you could fuck their entire lives. especially if they're not self-aware.

so either you go all out or you don't say a word. that's just me though. if you've lost all credibility and i don't want to associate with you, should i be evil and tell you who you are? ( let alone prove you wrong.. ) -- or do i save my karma and try to ghost because otherwise i'd probably feel bad because i'd be telling him the truth?

if part of my argument involves the other person, for example -- if someone who wasn't born with arms and legs tries to argue about knitting techniques using long fingernails, do i tell this person or point out that he/she doesn't have arms or legs? hands and fingers for that matter? because perspective is also important. and some people don't see the small box they're speaking from.

or if a 0/10 loser beta virgin is trying to give me "romance" advice on "how to game", and i'm surrounded and flooded with chads and top celebrities who go after me? do you really think i should just shut him down via logic ? because for him to say that type of stupid shit, he really doesn't know who he's dealing with / who he is. do i tell him his advice doesn't matter because he's fugly, has only dated bottom of the barrel landwhales, and low-value females? i could, but then i might hurt him. so instead of doing all that, i'll just try to 1) wrap it up nicely or 2) pretend he won (or let him think he did by not going back and forth until the subject's dead) so i don't have to dish out the truth.

if i was a chad and some lowly virgin who stutters in front of his own mom tried to argue with me about sex advice, yes i could win and on top of that point out that he's a fucking untouchable virgin who wears teletubbies shirts, but is it worth me destroying someone's feelings? hm :( depends.

for the sake of argument, yes i'd tell them
>if i was going to burn all bridges, fuck yes

but if they're a friend, or someone you don't want to do like that because they've been nice to you, it's best to just keep quiet. otherwise you might say something you'll regret lmao :( (only kind people have this worry. shh)

tl;dr you have to meet the criteria to argue

u don't qualify

>I can't use my native language to argue about complicated things FUCK YOU LITERASTS
>shits on keyboard

>>34052542
>>34056069
This is also and equally, respectively true but I'd rather a linguistic troll win a debate with an illiterate atheist any day, the influence the faction has over freedom of thought is an entirely separate issue, it's like fighting people with morning stars with sticks and rocks.

File: 1474466797265.jpg (491KB, 1276x1306px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1276x1306px

>>34055934
The virgin could win an argument about sex advice because of who he is as well though, it just depends on the context.

Pic related, I'd believe this guy (500+ rejections) saying that the numbers game isn't for everyone before I'd believe genetic lottery winning Chad telling me otherwise.

>>34056111
it's called sophistry
r h e t o r i c

and don't confuse delusion with eloquence
>you might think you make sense but objectively you could sound like an aspie w/ dementia

>>34056168
>I believe an anonymous guy who made up greentext stories

Kek, how stupid are you?

>>34056017

This.

I don't care how educated some autistic savant is about a topic, he should shut his inferior defective mouth if he can't form a coherent argument. Know your fucking place, autists. All of your "intelligence" is absolutely worthless if you can't fucking meet the bare minimum standards to debate.

>>34056175
>objectively

This is why nobody knows wtf aspergers is. Because it's a natural reaction to poor health being normalized/accomodation of mental illness.

>>34056222
It's pretty believable, some people are just very ugly.

>>34056313
>ugly

Well he should've exerted common sense and not tried to ask out women if he's fuck ugly.

>>34056313
>>34056222
Also that was just an example holy shit, thank god I'm not arguing with your dumb ass.

>>34056350
>not arguing
>thinks he had one to begin with

Kek.

File: 13473234_1135972903111546_197680210_n.jpg (91KB, 442x1346px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 442x1346px

>>34056168
not reading a manifesto by a random virgin

it depends on the q, context, debate

whatever it is, i don't care about the opinion of some people. i'm sorry but if the guy in pic tried to argue with me about what fashion looks best on a girl, would i really care? would i even want to be there? discuss anything with him?

>no offense to that guy if he ever sees this, but really.

if my style was featured in international magazines with your favorite celebrities, my peers are designers & creative directors at y3 / celine / adidas / - insert top brands which are too intimate to share atm because its a small niche, but leads the culture / what people lust after - .. designers who create visuals for every mass media piece you see incl. music videos and lookbook campaigns... do you really think i would give a fuck about what some hellokitty shirt wearing neckbeard has to say?

i'm sorry but fuck the fuck no lol fuck *cringe*

it's terrible to think about, but it does happen. some people don't have the credibility nor the right to talk about a subject they know nothing about. if he likes cargo shorts and mlp wear, fine. but please don't try to argue with me about fashion because you and i have different, irreconcilable values and perspectives.

you have to qualify to argue

he has 0 credibility for who he is
and why would i waste my time trying to 'win'?

who he is is a loser period

he might argue for 10 hours thinking he's winning about why __ fashion is best on women and why ___ is the prettiest, but has he even been in a photoshoot? has he ever been in any shoot with the top sought-after models, where you're the stylist or you share the same knowledge as the stylist / designers / brands? no... he doesn't even know what fashion is.

i'm sorry but you can't argue with autists. better keep quiet instead of crushing their existence

>>34056333
Okay?

I'm saying his existence would invalidate the old platitude "There's someone for everyone, you just have to play the numbers game and at least one out of x girls will say yes." that Chads with Adonis genetics spout.

>>34056168
>people on here actually believe this shit is real

Kek, autistic robots really do live in an echo chamber.

>>34056384
He could be a fashion designer deessed like that ironically, theoretically.

>>34055197
>perhaps you're a NEET who has an infinite supply of time, but other people don't wish to spend hours arguing with an insolent bastard over a trivial subject
if you didn't want to have an argument you shouldn't have engaged in the first place. you can't just try and correct someone and then say "lol not worth my time" when they carry on the argument
>yes, i could put him to rest, but is it my priority?
so you've got time in between those "millions of things" you're doing to correct someone, but then all of a sudden you're busy when it's time to respond?
ultimately, if you aren't able to form an argument that the other anon can't poke holes in, you can't claim to be all mighty and busy when they do. it's the same as when tumblrinas call someone out then yell "it's not my job to educate you" when they get a response.

If your argument was 100% correct, you should be able to show that succinctly because obviously the evidence is on your side. if you can't do that, then maybe your argument wasn't all that correct and you're just refusing to accept that, claiming the moral high ground because apparently you're too busy to respond.

in all honesty, sounds like you've lost a lot of arguments and this is how you justify not having a response to yourself.
>lmao you think i've got time to respond to your post that proves me wrong? try again kiddo i'm a busy guy
>n-no i'm not wrong, i just don't have time to prove it, even though i responded to you and had time to see your reply
fuck off

>>34056222
>>34056410
>Greentext and Kek
I don't know what you're doing but you sure like repeating it.

>>34052513
I think what they're trying to say is that they might have a counterargument but are unable to transmit it as organized speech. The problem isn't with the point they're trying to make, the problem is with the articulation process. This happens to me all the time irl

>>34055677
>gets btfo
>"loool i wasn't being serious yassss queen"
you're not fooling anyone, faggot

>>34056497
>DUDE YOUR USING WORDS I DON'T LIKE

Congratulations, what an amazing observation. You get a gold star for being so smart anon, I imagine it's the only award you've ever gotten in your life.

>>34056479
>you can't just try and correct someone and then say "lol not worth my time" when they carry on the argument
Yes you can.

For instance, I'm bored, so I'll be closing this right after I make this post and you can't stop me.

That's how wrong you are, see?

>>34056531
I'm just calling you a samefag, samefag. Calm down.

>>34056545
Yeah but we're not having an argument. Also, if all you're doing is calling people out and then ignoring their response, you're not arguing.
>I'm bored, so I'll be closing this right after I make this post and you can't stop me.
You're absolutely right, doesn't change how wrong you are though, and everyone will see that in this thread.
Not to mention the fact you ignored most of my reply. You're just a lazy person that can't back up his arguments, aren't you?

>>34056585
>calling me a samefag
>I don't know what you're doing
>you're
>implying you didn't already imply that I was the same person

Wow, it's absolutly nothing. Good job anon, here is another gold star ;)

>>34056384
strawman after strawman after strawman.

>>34056479
>so you've got time in between those "millions of things" you're doing to correct someone, but then all of a sudden you're busy when it's time to respond?
>busy is a lie

w0w some people live a different reality than you?! lyke imagine having 100 friends I R L and knowing 1 anon from 4chan. this 1 anon is ugly as fuck, rude, annoying, psychotic, delusional, and a total sperg.

HE creates an argument out of thin air, not me, and i don't even want to argue. he's retarded and makes up shit that isn't real, and when i respond to his original contention, he gets bitter. what started off as a comment will turn into an argument....

previously/meanwhile, all my 100 friends are trying to get at me but i talked to the sperg momentarily because i had a second when i was procrastinating. instead of responding to my actual friends, i got overwhelmed with the normie life and responded to the sperg (even though he's last on the priority list and the one person i don't know).

he responds with argumentative manner.

it's not that i suddenly have to go because "lol how convenient im super busy!!" but i'm literally swamped by irl people, who i actually know, who actually care about me and i love, who have been dying to talk/see me for ages, and there are more repercussions for leaving them on read than some fuckwad i don't have interest in talking to.

if he decides to argue, sure, i can either get to him at some point or let it linger since it's not worth it and i'm obviously busy.

but fuck off if you think people deserve to be put first during an argument lmao

>>34056613
Hey you caught on. I thought I was going too fast.

>>34056637
>>34056479


i'm sorry but if i talk to that anon for 1 second out of procrastination and shitposting, why do i owe him and not the 100 other people my precious time? giving him a sec was a mistake in the first place, you're telling me i should continue to ignore my friends and wait until we're completely done? i'm sorry but that's not how it works; normies and lovers come first, and i could care less about proving some youtuber on a niche channel or an anon wrong.

when you have lots of friends, you have to keep balance. you can't talk to one person for days on end because there's 2348203498023948 other people waiting their asses off.

why the fuck would HE have priority? he'll be addressed and i'll finish arguing (if i decide to even) once i'm actually able to.

and not only that,

>If your argument was 100% correct, you should be able to show that succinctly because obviously the evidence is on your side. if you can't do that, then maybe your argument wasn't all that correct and you're just refusing to accept that, claiming the moral high ground because apparently you're too busy to respond.

maybe part of the evidence involves making him self-aware

and not everyone wants to be a bitch x

>>34056670
>DUDE I WAS JUST PRETENDING THAT YOU WERE TOO STUPID, YOU'VE BEEN RUSED HAHAHAHANIDNWEUFNWENFUIWNERF

Sure you were :^)

>>34056690
lol...okay, man

>>34056711
>lol...okay,man

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/reddit/

Oregino Commentio

>>34054496
>I mean obviously the solution is to not have an argument until you can properly articulate it, but sometimes the idea is unique or pressing so you want to get it out ASAP.

ITT: People who think they should "win" an argument because of how they feel (emotions) instead of what the facts are (logic)

>If your argument was 100% correct, you should be able to show that succinctly because obviously the evidence is on your side. if you can't do that, then maybe your argument wasn't all that correct and you're just refusing to accept that, claiming the moral high ground because apparently you're too busy to respond.

it could be a combination of

1) being busy, being popular, life
and
2) not wanting to show him why he has no opinion of worth

>especially if there's no nice way to say it, do i really want to tell someone the truth if there would be no way for him to look at himself in the mirror afterwards?
>sometimes it's best to let nature take its course. or at least agree to disagree. not get to deep, or think about a way to amicably let him down and "win", because it really depends on what they're talking about. sometimes it's best not to say anything at all if there's no nice way to say it. :(

sometimes people value the other person's feelings and future more than they value a W from an argument.

>>34056737
You would know what type of things they post on reddit wouldn't you

>>34056763
>You would know what type of things they post on reddit wouldn't you
>projecting

Dude we've already established go on reddit, no need to project kiddo.

>>34056637
>HE creates an argument out of thin air, not me, and i don't even want to argue
If you didn't want to argue you shouldn't have made an argument desu, do you think your opinion is immune to criticism?
you also talking about a worst case scenario, and that isn't even what this thread is about, stop moving the goalposts. no ones talking about you arguing with a sperg who literally doesn't make an argument, the thread is about people like you you claim they could btfo anyone but they can't articulate it. that means you can't btfo anyone. then you justify this to yourself by saying "oh i'm so busy" and "oh my argument totally destroys his, shame i can't put it into words!"
btw, if you somehow can't put the words in your head onto the screen then guess what? you don't have any words and you've deluded yourself into thinking that you have.

>>34056674
>maybe part of the evidence involves making him self-aware
once more, if you could irrefutably prove your point, he wouldn't be able to deny it.
>and not everyone wants to be a bitch x
>lol i just don't want to be a bitch hehe i'm being kind by ignoring his argument
>y-yes i do have an argument
>n-no you're not worth my argument, but trut me it completely destroys yours!!
d e l u s i o n a l
>>34056742
>more pathetic excuses why you can only respond until you have to prove yourself right

it's okay not to have an argument, but you shouldn't brag about arguments you don't have

thus BEING SILENT IN AN ARGUMENT =/= LOSING

you could be the bigger person as you're saving their feelings / future, how they think of themselves, and keeping quiet. words can't be forgotten. i could care less about his approval / winning an argument / what he thinks of me but i don't think i'd feel good knowing i let him know what i did. it's not that it would be wrong, objectively or factually, but i'm also not the type of person to hurt people who've been kind.

even if it frustrates me to no end, i want to cut this person off and not even HAVE them as a friend because they're so fucking stupid and deluded, the dumb moral side of me (which i don't know if i should crush) keeps telling me not to. it's actually harder to keep quiet than it is to argue, in certain cases such as this.

>>34054911
>in an ideal world everyone would be able to share their thoughts with everyone without having be afraid that sharing their thoughts would somehow derail their plans or negatively impact their lives.

Literally autism.

>>34056829
sounds like you're trying really hard to justify that to yourself senpai
>if you can't refute a refutation, you lost
>if you can't put your argument into words, you lost
it's really fucking simple. no matter how much you try to convince yourself you're doing it for "their" sake, you still lost.
learn to argue

>>34056816
lmao "stop moving the goalposts"

the point of this shit is to bring a counterexample to the scenario brought in pic. from an outsider's view, who's read that pic, they might believe silence stems from anxiety or the inability to frame one's speech. i'm saying that isn't always the clear case.

i have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. i'm not talking about the thread, i'm talking about my own experience with a specific sperg using a different scenario that is somewhat tied to lack of speech presented in above. also some people don't instigate fights or argue with anons on purpose; there are schizophrenic fucks who misunderstand or hallucinate and argue as if it's real. it's not cool arguing with crazy - especially when what they're saying has no factual basis. lrn2read pls

Honestly, the most confusing part to me is the idea that one can win an argument. What do you win, who's the referee? I know there's a highly-stylized theater called debate (contests) which has a scoring system, but I don't think that's what people have in mind. I'm pretty sure the "winner" is just the person who feels the most sanctimonious. Which, in any case, Tumblr and 4chan users seem to have in infinite supply.

>>34056778
>projects
->claims its the other person thats projecting
How clever...
Not

>>34056933
>DUDE I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?

>>34055197
>people are perfectly able to place their thoughts into words. it's a matter of whether one wishes to. why is it important to prove something to you? do i need your validation? do i have any energy to explain? do i even care? lmao

Maybe stop talking in broad generalizations?

When you say "people are perfectly able to place their thoughts into words" do you mean all people? Some people? There are people who exist who can?

Because OP is demonstrating that not everybody can.

>>34055245

Is your PHD in Narcissism? No wait, Social Media? Communications?

>>34056899
Topic: Men like ____ women

Subject A: 200 pound landwhale
>I've had so much experience with men! They love my blubber. Love handles are sexy and due to my HIGH AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE, and never being turned down from a boy, I know that fat is definitely the best!

Subject B: slim girl
>i'm happy with how i look and i attract men who are models or celebs, very good looking gentlemen who are kind and sweet and A+ catches for any lady or man objectively, to judge that is -- i feel just as desired but i'm not sure your caliber of men is the same as mine.
>is slim, toned, has VS figure, 100 lbs

so who wins the argument? if subject A argues that she's right and her words trump mine, and i simply decide not to bother because i don't want to point out how obese she is or that the men she's dated are all beer chugging dungeons & dragons fanboys who wear ketchup-stained overalls to the club, am i losing?

w/e you want to believe lmao nobody's stopping you :*

o shit i must be a loser bc you said so

OF COURSE

it's not worth it t b h because if the person doesn't matter, their opinion doesn't matter.

winning someone won't change the fact that they are what they are. i can win, but they're still going to be an autist.

you know X is bad for you, but why do you still do it? if you know what's right?

it's futile

>>34055934
>like if the person you're arguing with is a fucking degenerate piece of trash

It's hard to argue with people who have no values. If you don't know what your opponent values, you can't appeal to any of it.

They usually default to "so what?" "who cares?"

>>34056908
>the point of this shit is to bring a counterexample to the scenario brought in pic
maybe so, but your example is of a completely different situation. hence "stop moving the goalposts". no one expects you to keep responding to someone who doesn't have an argument or is just insulting you, but that's completely different to the situation in the pic, isn't it?
>they might believe silence stems from anxiety or the inability to frame one's speech. i'm saying that isn't always the clear case.
then you're talking about something we're not talking about, it's completely different.
>i'm not talking about the thread
then why are you here?
>using a different scenario that is somewhat tied to lack of speech
again, a completely different scenario. the point of the thread is that if you can't articulate your argument, then no matter how much you try to convince everyone you do, you don't have an argument.
you said this isn't true, and tried to explain how you could just not want to hurt someones feelings, but as above, this means you don't have an argument. now you're going back and forth because surprise surprise, you don't have an argument anymore, so you keep bringing up irrelevant shit.
>talking about schizophrenics
is how low you have to go to try and bolster your argument lmfao

>>34057063
>more pathetic extreme scenarios. in this case, we wouldn't even ask women what men like, because they're not men you fucking idiot.
neither of these women has anything to back up their arguments other than anecdotal evidence, which is shit. if any of them pulled up real data on men surveyed on what body type they like, then they'd have an actual argument, instead of just conjecture

>>34057139
>tthe point of this thread is

you insert yourself into someone who wasn't even talking about said subject and come at me like i was? so like i said, you are batshit insane. be aware of the scenario before you try to add your 2c

also thinking this is an argument = lol jesus

does the internet make you this heated? are we arguing rn senpai? lmaooohahaha

if only you tried this hard on your math hw

>>34055934
>if part of my argument involves the other person, for example -- if someone who wasn't born with arms and legs tries to argue about knitting techniques using long fingernails, do i tell this person or point out that he/she doesn't have arms or legs? hands and fingers for that matter? because perspective is also important. and some people don't see the small box they're speaking from.

You don't have to have personal experience with something to speak on it. Especially if it's a technique you can read about.

>>34056168
>i approached roughly 500 girls in the first 6 months of uni, trying over 30 different routines. the build-up of failures made me literally known as the creepy guy on campus

Instead of abandoning "routines", he kept doing what wasn't working, and was rightfully labeled the creepy guy on campus.

>>34057198
>i don't have an argument so i'm going to try and belittle you
i'm going to let this speak for itself. are you going to convince yourself that this is you "destroying" my argument?

This is a real problem, though. For Stacy it's a cop out because she can't come up with a reasonable argument anyway, but for some of us we just can't organize and articulate our thoughts well enough to present our argument. It extends beyond arguments as well. For example there are things I know perfectly well but I'd have a lot of difficulty explaining or teaching these things to another person. This is probably a terrible metaphor but imagine a chaotic and unorganized room. If it's yours then you know where everything is, no problem. Someone else looking at it just sees a mess.

>>34056384
>if my style was featured in international magazines with your favorite celebrities, my peers are designers & creative directors at y3 / celine / adidas / - insert top brands which are too intimate to share atm because its a small niche, but leads the culture / what people lust after - .. designers who create visuals for every mass media piece you see incl. music videos and lookbook campaigns... do you really think i would give a fuck about what some hellokitty shirt wearing neckbeard has to say?

Never write again.

It seems like you can't write a coherent sentence because you have no coherent thoughts.

>>34057203
sure, but who's going to take you seriously?

define expertise. see: quality of

this is why chads/stacys laugh at autists

>>34056384
>you have to qualify to argue

Oh, so if a woman isn't a supermodel, she can't have an opinion on other women's looks?

Right...

>>34052513
if your argument mattered to you youd work it out right now instead of waiting or ending up on the spot. not because its such a big deal but i mean only if you care.

i sometimes have that problem too tho. not so much with arguments but with joining in conversations. is like why interject when im better off dead?

>>34057277
>For example there are things I know perfectly well but I'd have a lot of difficulty explaining or teaching these things to another person
You know the adage; "if you can't explain it to a child you don't understand it well enough"
>imagine a chaotic and unorganized room. If it's yours then you know where everything is, no problem. Someone else looking at it just sees a mess.
A more apt metaphor would be the same cluttered, chaotic room but with you trying to claim it's clean.

>>34056479
>it's the same as when tumblrinas call someone out then yell "it's not my job to educate you" when they get a response.
>If your argument was 100% correct, you should be able to show that succinctly because obviously the evidence is on your side. if you can't do that, then maybe your argument wasn't all that correct and you're just refusing to accept that, claiming the moral high ground because apparently you're too busy to respond.
>in all honesty, sounds like you've lost a lot of arguments and this is how you justify not having a response to yourself.

This. All of this.

>>34056637

Sure anon, sure. You're so busy with your life, literally swamped by irl people, who actually care about you, who have been dying to talk to you and see you for ages.

Yet you have plenty of time to respond to some random anon on 4chan, who, according to you, is ugly as fuck, rude, annoying, psychotic, delusional, and a total sperg. Because you got overwhelmed with normie life. Because you had a second when you were procrastinating.

Not because you're overplaying how "busy" you are to make yourself look good...

>>34056674
>giving him a sec was a mistake in the first place

You would think you would learn your lesson after a while...

>>34056908
>i'm not talking about the thread, i'm talking about my own experience with a specific sperg using a different scenario that is somewhat tied to lack of speech presented in above.

>i'm not talking about the topic, i'm talking about a thing in my own brain that nobody knows about!

>it's not cool arguing with crazy

You're right actually.

>>34056913

Try to argue that abortion is not murder. Go ahead.

File: 35463456354.jpg (7KB, 178x284px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 178x284px

>>34054892
>intelligence=argumentative ability

You probably think Sophists were philosophers too dont ya?

>>34056913
you prove your point or disprove anothers and potentially even have someone see things your way.

>>34057711
but keep in mind some people are so insecure about everything in their lives that seeing from someone elses perspective or perhaps even admitting their wrong and amending their ways is far too humane of them so they become upset when proven wrong. her some people get testy when you assert that there may even be points worth debating.

>>34057063
>so who wins the argument?

The problem is the form of the phrase "men like (blank) women." It's a generalization, and every generalization is flawed.

If a fatty has had success with men, in her experience, there are men who like fat women.

If a model has had success with men, in her experience, there are men who like model women.

But saying "men like" kind of suggests "ALL men like", because men is plural, it suggests the entire category at once, rather than "more than one man likes..."

If people would stop talking like that, if people would qualify what they say more, "In my experience, I have met men who liked my fat body" or "In my experience, I have met men who liked my model body" there would be less arguments. If someone says that, are you going to say "no, you didn't experience that?"

Arguments often arise when a single person attempts to speak for more people than themselves. In reality, people speaking about themselves is more likely to be accurate than people speaking about others, although people can still lie about themselves.

If more people spoke in E-Prime, which eliminates "is" or "be" verbs, which tend to make opinions appear as facts, there would be more clarity in speech, and maybe less arguments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

>The E-Prime versions communicate the writer's experience rather than judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion with fact.

>Kellogg and Bourland describe misuse of the verb to be as creating a "deity mode of speech", allowing "even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things".

That's the problem: deity mode of speech. As in: Men like (blank) women.

However, if something is true over half of the time, it's safer to say. For example, men tend to seek out youth and beauty in women. Women tend to seek out success, power, and money in men.

>>34057277

Arguments are also about persuasion.

You can have a good argument but still fail to persuade someone.

Many times it comes down to the art of persuasion.

This is how people who lose arguments _actually_ think.

This is why trolling them is superior. All grizzled internet debaters eventually cut the shit and just start trolling. You can't get through to people unless they actually care about your opinions. Even then it's hard.

Our primitive impulses are what guide us, our conscious minds are just tools of rationalization and justification. Read Haidt if you're interested in learning how this all works. Kahneman's book is good too.

>>34057290

Well, someone with autism who's never had sex may not be able to speak from personal experience, but they may have read study after study after study about interpersonal relationships, sexual attraction, studies that measure what women want using surveys and plethysmographs, etc.

On an anonymous imageboard, you can't appeal to authority, because anybody could be lying about their experience.

However, citing evidence does often make people take an argument more seriously.

However, some say that people make decisions emotionally first, and only later to facts and evidence factor in.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
>We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

>We're not driven only by emotions, of course--we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower--and even then, it doesn't take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that's highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.

And with studies, people can also point to experts.

A guy who's slept with 500 women may have a lot of experience. But would his experience necessarily translate or extend to any man on Earth? Not necessarily. That's why science favors repeatability: if you test a theory hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of times, you can't prove it's true but it does establish probability.

File: C0lNYjFXUAAek1t.jpg (60KB, 871x725px)

60KB, 871x725px

>>34057488
here's a life in case example. ty

1. do i prove this kiddo wrong by supplying him with whatever proof to show how 'busy' i am, and how hundreds of people do wait on me? who i am compared to the sperg in question, posting my argument, or shots of my accomplishments in magazines and identity?

or wait.. what's worse: thinking of the effort/time it'd take for me to go and screen shot every single thing, send it to my computer via phone, post it here and wait for the cooldown limit, and wait for some other bullshit he'd spew after getting btfo?

or realize that me getting evidence and compiling it for a random fucking stranger who literally doesn't matter is dumb?

what would be a better use of my time - doing something productive of proving you wrong because "my ego needs it" and i can? hm

not everyone needs the ego boost lmao

i'd actually be doing myself a disservice by trying to prove someone wrong.

hence think what you want senpai
like i said, you thinking i'm lying doesn't change the fact that it is how it is. a sperg thinking + arguing that he's lord chad doesn't change the fact that the world looks at him as "that special dysfunctional kid"

>>34056111 you're dumb

>>34057674
they're fucking retarded. 13 year old children who shitpost don't make sense

>>34056111 please go read aristophanes. see: clouds. educate yourself on sophistry. paradoxical encomiums. gorgias. laws (nomos) and how they are based on a clear sense of right / wrong by nature. protagoras on learning and judgment.

also tie a noose around your neck and jump 4 joy bb

>>34057918
>All grizzled internet debaters eventually cut the shit and just start trolling.

Trolling is irrelevant.

If you think spreading the truth matters, you'll continue trying to educate people.

Trolls can't diminish the truth. Only distract from it.

>>34056741
You can have a great idea but fail too much at communication to express it. On the other hand you can have a false idea but use language so well that people buy into it.

Pretty sure you were deliberately misinterpreting me.

celebrities go on the www

each time someone argues they're not who they are, do you think each soul rushes to collage a "this-is-me" irl evidence showcase so they can win the argument and shut the other down? lmfao.

sorry, but it's not always about that. some people are happy sitting in silence and letting the other believe what they want.

if anything, if i were to do something as petty and childish as that, i'd probably think to myself "... what have i become???"

>proving myself to people who don't matter?

do you think people of importance (speaking at the initial subject of celebrities, who will always have doubters online) care about timestamping for autists? no. think about why v^_^v

being reduced to arguing with trolls online, let alone responding to their baseless arguments, is petty. it's trivial. for someone i cared about, maybe? but even then - it's quite rare, and it would depend.

you're not important enough to prove wrong.

this is why not everyone responds to you nor cares about arguing with you. it's not a matter of you winning; you most definitely aren't and won't. but them proving you wrong isn't worth the effort.

>>34057970

If you were as busy as you said you were, would you have had the time to post in the first place?

People who stop arguing by saying "I'm busy, got to go" look like they're running away because they have no points left to make. Or can't justify what they're saying.

You asked what would be a better use of your time? Um, not responding in the first place if you're really so busy?

And I really don't many sperks on /r9k/ argue they're Lord Chad. They know why they're here. Why are you here? I thought you were busy?

>>34057997
>You can have a great idea but fail too much at communication to express it. On the other hand you can have a false idea but use language so well that people buy into it.

Well I do agree with the second part. Salespeople train themselves in persuasion.

But as for a great idea, was it nonverbal to begin with? There were no words involved?

I mean, I don't think all ideas have to arrive in words, but unless someone is like, tripping balls, I'm having a hard time seeing how someone has a great idea outside language.

Now, if someone is on an English website and English isn't their first language, I could see their difficulty putting their idea into words. And maybe some people have a hard time summarizing their thoughts, bringing it all into a coherent whole.

Or maybe the "great idea" wasn't really so great afterall. Maybe they haven't thought it all through, considered all the consequences.

Like getting a tattoo. It might seem like a great idea at the time. But will it still be considered a great idea years later?

File: 1448322146005.jpg (90KB, 565x569px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 565x569px

>>34057994
lmao its 2017 and you actually believe that? there's so much wrong in what you're saying. as if there's an agreed upon "truth" that everyone will simply accept if they see it?

even granting you that, trolling spreads the truth better than hamfistedly "spreading the truth". read Haidt

If you can't express your own argument well enough, you need to just concede and then work on improving your understanding. The more you understand something the easier it is to explain, and the more context and experience you have with the subject, the more comparisons you can make to support yourself. You may technically still be in the right, but it's still a bad sign when you can't argue something you "understand", and it's perfectly valid to say you have lost an argument because you couldn't express your arguments well enough.

>>34058090

A lot of times it's easier to say something wrong, then actually research and gather evidence and explain why something is wrong and say the truth.

It's a million times faster to just say false things. Correcting misinformation can be a time sink. But once correct information is found, it can be used again and again.

However, I have a feeling you are talking more about people stating their opinions as if they are facts, and people speaking for others, when people should probably stick to speaking for themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
>For example, the sentence "the film was good" could not be expressed under the rules of E-Prime, and the speaker might instead say "I liked the film", "the film made me laugh", or "the film has value". The E-Prime versions communicate the writer's experience rather than judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion with fact.

>>34058099
so true. I've been on 4chan since longcat and people were using that even then.

>>34058249
>even granting you that, trolling spreads the truth better than hamfistedly "spreading the truth". read Haidt

It doesn't.

Trolling spreads propaganda well. Propaganda and truth are not the same thing.

A correct infographic doesn't need to be changed. It cannot be refuted.

That's why, when roasties talk about how "why is it so wrong if i fuck guys every weekend", they can be shown actual charts and studies that show the negative societal consequences for being a total slut. Or, you could point to the number of bastards in the inner city and crime rates.

>>34058249

you're arguing that bluepills redpill people faster than redpills? are you going to stick with that?

>>34058419
>That's why, when roasties talk about how "why is it so wrong if i fuck guys every weekend", they can be shown actual charts and studies that show the negative societal consequences for being a total slut. Or, you could point to the number of bastards in the inner city and crime rates.

And you think that actually causes them to change their behavior? I feel that porn is bad for me, but I still fap to it. Our fundamental drives and emotive core don't shift because of some pesky facts. Roasties, for example: Their feminism is a justification for their hedonistic tendencies. They aren't hedonists because they adopted the feminist ideology. They engage in hedonism because they can, and found feminism was a useful justification. Simply pointing out "ew gross I'd never marry a girl with a notch count higher than 5" as an attractive Chad would do more to stop their behavior than any amount of numbers and stats.

rhetoric > dialectic

I assume we're on the same side politically, so this is a "truth" you should really look into. It's a bitter pill to swallow if you're a rational minded optimist, but its also very powerful and has practical value. The truth is something no one will ever agree on. You have to push your own agenda from a position of ruthless pragmatism.

Some people definitely can have their minds changed with logic and facts (I consider myself one, I've gone through numerous shifts), but they're a small small minority.

>>34058483
depends on who you're targeting. people who are "almost there" like breitbart readers and rush limbaugh listeners are going to be a lot more receptive to "facts and logic" argumentation, but someone who is fundamentally opposed to your ideas is not going to be swayed at all. you'll just get the response in the OP

What Trump did in that screenshot was post an infographic with inaccurate statistics and "factchecking" media jumped to correct him

>HAHA drumpf AKSHUALLY 90% of blacks are killed by other blacks

Dismantling the "they out here murdering us" narrative BLM was pushing. It seems like a stretch, but Trump does shit like that REGULARLY, which is where the 88D chess meme comes from.

>>34057970
you can talk in hypotheticals all you like, doesn't change the fact that if you don't prove something you're assumed a liar.
>what would be a better use of my time - doing something productive of proving you wrong because "my ego needs it" and i can? hm
you tell us, you're the one that said you were leaving after a comment then stuck around until now. really shows how "busy" you are lmfao
>>34056545

don't assume everyone puts in the same effort as you #while #arguing

when boyfriends let their gfs win in a game, when chad pitches an easy-to-hit ball or athletes don't try as hard when they're playing against non-athletes. pretending not to know the answer so the other feels more manly & proud. letting them win doesn't mean you're a loser. to them, sure. but if you really know, why care? lmao.

autists will assume everyone reciprocates with the same intensity as them. no, we're letting you.

basically continue to suck your own dick
but know that others know the truth :b

don't be a silly puppet

>>34058872
>lol i'm just letting you win this argument
>b-but i could btfo you if i wanted
>i just feel sorry for you
embarrassing

and to whoever was saying 'hur hur ur busy now well ya shouldnt have replied first of all!'

3 PM. jane is busy.
jane should've been studying, but decided to shitpost and respond to an anon's IM. feeling bad for not responding for months, decides to answer his 'how are you'. he takes something the wrong way and tries to argue about subj.

4 PM. jane is still just as busy, but even more fucked on time. reality creeps in.
anon is trying to start a debate. she was never supposed to talk to anon in the first place, but her bad habits got the best of her and she was acting careless. she decides not to make the same mistake twice / fuck herself over any further, and leave to study. it's not like talking to him his enjoyable, anyway.

does her leaving have anything to do with the argument? no. it has to do with the fact that busy people, who are busy before an argument came into existence, are even more pressed on time as the minutes pass and they're not going to fuck themselves over again by doing what they did earlier in the day -- chatting.

you can say whatever you want, "oh hahahaha she left because she has nothing to say LOLLL I WONNNNN" but no, you're just oblivious and selfish.

everyone's schedule has to match your needs and desires, right? you demand when to talk about something and if the other person has to go, they're automatically losing? lmao. you're the master pulling the strings of the universe amirite?

because if someone decides to procrastinate at 3 PM, they better procrastinate alllll the way until the entire week passes, right darling?! lmao. how the fuck dare they try to accomplish their goals and leave when they really have to go work? when someone else decides to stir an argument, and when she decides she has to get her shit done, have no connection whatsoever.

stop thinking everything resolves around you
stop being selfish and assuming what your ego wants u 2 believe

goodnight gollums

File: CyRct2ZXgAEqvpc.jpg (93KB, 720x895px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 720x895px

>>34057970
literally all i have to say about this thread

>please go read aristophanes. see: clouds. educate yourself on sophistry. paradoxical encomiums. gorgias. laws (nomos) and how they are based on a clear sense of right / wrong by nature. protagoras on learning and judgment.

>also tie a noose around your neck and jump 4 joy bb
>>34058872

>>34058901
but you're still here faggot just shut the fuck up we all know you can't argue for shit

>>34058571

It depends what the goal is.

What's the point in changing the behavior of a used up slut? So she can "settle down" in her mid 30s after her rounds on the cock carousel?

Even a Chad accepting a girl with a Number 5 is being a cuck. That's five flavors of semen that have been on her lips. Five flavors of semen in her mouth. Five flavors of semen on her cunt, if she ever wants to get eaten out again.

No hymen, no diamond.

No, charts are there to redpill people on a) the truth, and b) so another generation can know the truth and not keep perpetuating nigger-level degeneracy.

Roasties can just be insulted for being roasties. They'll call that "slut shaming", but you can point out that yeah, sluts should be shamed, there's a reason every woman has "anti slut defense", because they all know it makes them look bad, for good reason.

For the same reason nobody wants to drink out of a Coke can that 20 guys have jizzed on, even if someone washed it off.

>>34058647
>What Trump did in that screenshot was post an infographic with inaccurate statistics and "factchecking" media jumped to correct him

Or someone could post the truth in the first place, and fact checkers might go, hey wait a minute, oh shit you're right.

>>34058872
>comparing people in relationships letting things go because sex is on the line, to people arguing on the internet

Look, if someone gets mad at you on the Internet, it's not like they're not going to fuck you for a month, it's not like you're going to see them everyday, it's not like you'll be in closed quarters with them.

Imageboards and most Internet forums in general are full of total strangers. The consequences for pissing them off (anonymously anyway) are less than IRL, when you have to see someone everyday.

People having sex in a relationship have something to lose when they argue. Then you could probably rank in Facebook.

But the people who have the least to lose are people are anonymous forums. So yeah, they may fight tooth-and-nail to win an argument, because it eventually becomes about personal ego and pride at that point.

>>34058901

Well you had enough free time to type all that out...

You undermine your own "I'm so busy" argument, when you reply.

>>34058901
>everyone's schedule has to match your needs and desires, right? you demand when to talk about something and if the other person has to go, they're automatically losing? lmao. you're the master pulling the strings of the universe amirite?

Do you know what "voluntary" means?

Did you know that most electronic replies are voluntary?

>>34052513
he's right though, i'm alright at thinking on my feet and i can often "disprove" someone else's arguement in real life even though i know there are major holes in my argument, it's all about spontaenity.

Only on Tumblr. If you can't articulate thoughts into an good argument then you shouldn't be having debates with other people.

There are time limits on debates.

File: 1423002942125.png (13KB, 640x712px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x712px

>debate fucker online
>my arguments are coherent and based on logic
>other guy is acting very hostile from the start and pretty much just keeps repeating a combination of "no", "you're retarded" and "kill yourself"
>other anons start taking his side
>they try to suppress my posts with "bait", "reddit" etc
>it's looking like I've lost when really the exact opposite is happening
>they've yet to bring up a single counter-argument
>point this out, they choose to ignore it or insult me
>there is no truth in this world; whatever the dumb majority believes, is considered the truth

>>34061655
Ugh, this always happens to me. It's frustrating.

>>34053169
I can win an argument with typing or writing but not talking in real life.

>>34061655
but m8y can't you see that your arguments are just f a k e n e w s

>>34052513
>tfw your too intelligent to articulate your thoughts